Reddit reviews Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America

I am currently reading Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America and one of the examples given was how the KKK started by taking guns away from Black freedman after the civil war in order to not allow Black Freedman the possibility of owning a gun and fighting against the atrocities from the KKK and the like

I recommend you read Gunfight. Actually, I recommend everyone here read it. It's a super easy read on our modern gun politics and the history that made them. I feel like a blackbelt in gun arguments now.
http://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-Over-Right-America/dp/0393345831

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X/

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010/

https://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-Over-Right-America/dp/0393345831

https://www.amazon.com/Living-Guns-Liberals-Second-Amendment/dp/1610391691/

https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Second-Amendment-Documentary-Commentaries/dp/0962366439

https://www.amazon.com/Armed-America-Remarkable-Became-American/dp/1595552847

https://www.amazon.com/Keep-Bear-Arms-Origins-Anglo-American/dp/0674893077

https://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Firearms-Control-Institutions/dp/0202305694

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X

Your question is so broad it would take a law scholar and a full book to answer it. Seriously, that is a great topical book that addresses your question expertly in detail.


> How and why has the shift happened?

The modern shift from 'militia' to 'individual' really dates to the extremist take over of the NRA at their annual meeting in 1977 known as the Revolt at Cincinnati.

The NRA indeed held silent as the country passed racially biased gun laws. But if you read the article, and certainly Winkler's book, Gunfight, from which this is an excerpt -- the NRA's overthrow in its leadership in 1977 was the result of discontent in its ranks regarding the NRA's approach to gun control, particularly in not opposing the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The "New" NRA of 1977 had a lot in common with the 1967 Panthers, who would serve as inspiration for early "open-carry" protests.

Winkler does not try to make the case that the NRA was opposed to black people taking up arms. Rather, he posits that the gun control efforts of the 1960s and 1970s put forth both by Democratic and Republican politicians were specifically oriented towards disarming black people -- and that initially, the NRA did not oppose these laws on any grounds, 2nd Amendment or racial or otherwise.

This gun control push, though it was targeted at blacks, inspired a backlash within the NRA rank and file, who were outraged at their leadership for not having put up more of a fight. Leadership was changed, and the NRA's focus became to beat back gun control laws.

Your point would be better stated as

>You might not know the history of the right to keep and bear arms and the civil rights movement

Because, yes, indeed, Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a concealed carry permit. Indeed many gun control laws, particularly in the south, were designed to disarm black people. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan was founded with the goal of confiscating the arms of black southerners.

Black citizens absolutely have not always had the same right to keep and bear arms as white americans. But that is not because of the NRA. And ever since the NRA became an organization explicitly opposed to gun control, they've been fighting against the urban "may-issue" permitting regimes and high fees which were explicitly designed to exclude the "wrong" class of people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

A good read if you can get it is Adam Winkler's book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. The author takes the 2008 Heller case as a jumping off point to discuss the history of guns and gun regulation in America.

It's relatively balanced (read the Amazon 1 star reviews--people both accusing him of writing NRA propaganda and accusing him if wanting to take their guns). And while people will disagree about some of his arguments and historical claims, it's a pretty good primer.

IIRC, the dc law was something like, residents didn't have the right to own anything other than a long barreled rifle and the ruling hinged on the utility of long barreled rifle in home self defense. In other words, an m14 isn't very useful in defending against a home invasion, and the second amendment gives you the right to defend yourself, so the dc law was invalid.

disclaimer, it's been a couple of years since I read gunfight.

Adam Winkler's Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America does a good job of covering District of Columbia v. Heller, the history of gun control in the US, and the interest group politics around the issue. Here's a good interview he did about the book for UCTV's Legally Speaking that led me to it in the first place.

If I am not mistaken, Adam Winkler covers how the NRA wanted regulation in the past (in relation to groups like the Black Panthers) in Gunfight. I intend to read some time in the next few months. Here is a link if you are interested:

https://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-Over-Right-America/dp/0393345831

I am also posting a link discussing Winkler's article in The Atlantic (whose site seems to be having difficulties at the moment):

https://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/fact-check-did-the-nra-supported-gun-control-when-the-black-panthers-advocated-that-minorities-arm-themselves/

Gunfight by Adam Winkler. Sorry that it's not an internet source. The Wikipedia page on concealed carry says the same thing if you want something more fast and dirty.

With HQL, exactly. If you cannot follow democratically created laws then maybe you ought not to have a gun if you are that irresponsible.

You also assume HQL was about reducing crime, what was the effect on suicides. Granted, I wasnt here when all that went into play and I do agree gun laws ought to be based on science and data.

If having an HQL license either by itself or coupled with other laws is failing to reduce crime or suicides than perhaps it needs to be re-considered.

The Heller dissents make sense when viewed in the original intent (this is different than Scalia's madeup 'originalism'). Common Law and Constitutional Law are two different things.

The original intent of the 2a is to protect the citizens of states to publically participate in the act of state-sponsored militia duty. Scalia made-up a new meaning of the 2a (it protects an individual right to own a gun). Which is fine, it is what it is but that's the basis of the dissent. This article spells it out a little more: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4021&context=flr

Scalia and the majority also held that the 2a is not an absolute right. States can enact gun control measures such as bans.
GunFight is a good read on it (you can blame DC lawmakers for writing such a blatantly shitty law to begin with): https://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-Over-Right-America/dp/0393345831

I think it is OK to ban an entire class of weapons and ammo and certain gun features like bump stocks and not violate a 2a. Whether or not that is the most effective way to get at something is up for debate and I worry about technological change and creation of black markets.

I think the method of selection based on characteristics (no folding stock vs bayonet lug vs its black) is dumb.

The response about ill-informed was particular about how you think Gun Control is theatre and there is "no new logical argument" for it.

I'll concede that some items being proposed may not be effective when compared to others but to state that it is theatre is still rather ill-informed.

No problem. One other actually: https://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-Over-Right-America/dp/0393345831/

One of the other great problems with this subject is that one side of it tends to be legally and technically illiterate on the subject. To the point that in this most recent dust up they're actually whining about being called out for saying ignorant things. And I'll grant, nitpicking the distinction between a "clip" and a "magazine" really is pointless semantics. But pointing out than AR-15 is not actually an assault rifle isn't just semantics; nor is pointing out when people don't understand the difference between semi-automatic and automatic or how the laws apply to those two things; nor is pointing out when people don't even know what the thing they're trying to ban even is. For reference, this is a "barrel shroud", that additional sheet of metal with holes in it that covers actual barrel, its meant to prevent you from burning your hand on a hot barrel.

So with that kind of insanity in mind, when I want to hear a pro-gun-control opinion that doesn't immediately give me a headache, Adam Winkler, the author of that book, is who I'll look for. If you want another book from the other side of the debate, the one I linked is what I'd recommend. Winkler actually has a clue what he's talking about.

> I think assaulting people for any reason is just plain wrong. Trump's no angel, but his supporters don't deserve to be treated like that. No one does.

Hear, hear.

> You say those protestors had nothing to do with liberalism. On that we can agree. But if you're going to say that, then you have to say that the Utah dad incident in your post above has nothing to do with conservatism. The vast majority of conservative voters and politicians do not advocate assaulting people.

I disagree. The Trump protesters and Trump supporters clashed about Trump and what he represents. He's made a lot of hay about being an outsider and his political "positions", such as they are, bear that out. The guy in the Utah bathroom freaked out about whether it was appropriate for a parent to take a 5 year old into the opposite sex bathroom. That is the latest hot button topic for social conservatives to get into a tizzy over. I find it hard to believe that the guy would have reacted that way if social conservatives had picked some other issue to make the new "greatest threat to our way of life". All that being said: it wasn't the best example to give. While I strongly suspect that the guy was motivated by the then-new discussion of bathroom use, I don't know it for sure. Thankfully, you've afforded me an opportunity to provide a better example.

> You even go so far as to say that holding conservative views is objectively harmful, and those are some really strong words to use. Is it harmful to believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is morally wrong?

Those are not my exact words. Social conservatism, as I've been using it, involves the passage of laws based on religion or tradition without supporting evidence and rational argument. Simply holding a viewpoint isn't harmful, but legislation based on blind acceptance of ideas because they come from a particular source, is.

It is not harmful to believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is morally wrong. It is harmful to use that belief as a basis for laws that restrict women's access to medical care. It harms the woman, who has little choice but to bear the child for which she doesn't feel she's ready. And it harms society by allowing a religious principle to be enshrined in law. I consider the establishment clause instrumental in the success of the US and it should be protected as fiercely as any of our rights.

> Is it harmful to believe that hard drugs are harmful not only to individuals and to society, so therefore they should be better regulated?

I wouldn't consider drugs to be in the same category of social conservatism, since there is ample evidence to support the idea that drugs are harmful to individuals and society. I would argue that wasting billions of dollars on ineffective interdiction methods while making billionaires out of the brutal warlords profiting from the sale of illegal goods for which there is a constant demand, is outrageously poor government. I would further argue that allowing the sale of alcohol and tobacco, which kill thousands and tens of thousands of Americans every year, respectively, while sending non-violent users of marijuana, which has killed (by the highest number in any of the studies I found on the matter) 2 people ever, to jail is abjectly ridiculous. But this is a different type of issue. You and I could trade statistics on drug use and abuse and interdiction efforts and have an actual discussion about how to best regulate substances which, while poisonous, feel awfully good to take. No such discussion is possible when no evidence or rational argument is available. This is the kind of thing that happens with social conservatives. "Here are the reasons why all of you can just calm down about this, because no one is being hurt and no one is any more likely to get hurt than before if trans teens can just use the bathroom of their gender identity", the woman says. "Yeah, well here's a song about how Jesus loves me and I know it because of my unquestioning faith in the words of an ancient book of dubious origin!" What kind of response is that to a rational argument about the welfare of a child?

Immigration and gun control are in the same category with drug control. I'm way left of center on those issues (though the book I've been reading is helping me balance out a bit on guns), but it's possible to have an actual debate on these topics. There are certainly people on both sides who clamp hands to ears and sing to drown out any kind of contradictory viewpoint, but most of us are capable of having a reasonable discussion on the matter. That's worlds apart from "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so."

Although pretty eloquent, I think that OP's interpretation is pretty far outside of the accepted scope of the current legal debate on the issue. For one thing, the this argument drives towards the conclusion that there should be no restrictions placed on any/all arms sale -- which is preposterous given the kind of destructive capacities of modern military-grade weapons. You're worried about North Korea getting nukes? Why then would you allow their sale to random US citizens? Extending this logic backwards, would life in the US be improved and "more free" if random people had easy access to Claymores, Predator Drones, RPGs, etc? Legal theory (and basic common sense) says "NO".

In fact, the "20-century revisionist activist judges" OP denigrates were specifically trying to cope with this issue. They were facing the reality of organized, 1920s crime syndicates that could easily and cheaply purchase machine guns with cash through the mail. They found that allowing everyone access to these kinds of extremely lethal weapons meant that the persons who had a profit motive to use those weapons did, and killed a fuck-ton of people in the process.

Also, OP's argument is based in the "insurrectionist model" of thought, which postulates that the purpose of the second amendment was to allow the violent overthrow of the US government at any point in time. I'll defer to Carl T. Bogus, professor of law, Roger William University School of Law who, says, "nahh".

Like you, I'm basically undecided on most of the gun policy I see. In the last couple month, I started getting interested in the history of the debate in the US. If you're interested, I'd highly recommend reading Gunfight, by Adam Winkler. It's a quite comprehensive introduction to the legal history of the second amendment but a very accessible read.